Broadly, success is discussed as a lack of new charges or violations of conditions of supervision. The interview guidelines for MHPs (see Appendix E) and CSPs (see Appendix F) do not explicitly query participants’ beliefs about the impact of
interprofessional relationships on offenders’ success in the community. However, the characteristics of the interview data assist in defining success as related to other criteria. Here, elements of collaboration contributing to improved outcomes are discussed in relation to specific indicators of success associated with reduced recidivism. These factors are also discussed in relation to the IPEC competencies discussed above.
106
the community, as defined by successful reintegration and avoiding probation or parole violations. MHPs did indicate that their partnerships maximized treatment services and their outcomes. As prior research has established the benefit of treatment on offenders’ success in the community (as defined by reduced recidivism; e.g., Landenberger & Lipsey, 2005; Lipsey et al., 2007; Schmucker & Lösel, 2008), this section focuses on how collaborations benefit treatment as a proxy for community success. Three major dimensions are evident with regard to MHPs’ perception of the benefit of collaboration on treatment.
First, as observed from discussions of the clinical service provider role (MHP 2.1), several MHPs describe their duties as a therapist, evaluator, or case manager as the most effective service they provide to their clients. In some cases this was described as direct client service, but some MHPs felt that the therapeutic relationship was beneficial for modeling skills needed for forming appropriate interpersonal relationships. Three subthemes describe aspects of the collaborative relationship that support how MHPs conduct their therapeutic duties.
MHPs indicated that valuing interprofessional collaboration improves the efficiency of their work (MHP 1.3) and makes them more likely to interact with CSPs (MHP 1.2). MHPs describe this as crucial for engaging their clients, particularly those who lack motivation. Thus, CSPs become the enforcement arm of treatment services for clients who would otherwise be unlikely to follow through with clinical referrals. MHPs receive information from CSPs that they would otherwise be unable to access, which in turn can inform targets for ongoing evaluation and treatment planning.
107
relationships (MHP 3.3). While relying on indirect communication methods is not optimal for maintaining the professional relationship, utilizing modern communication methods increases the flow of information from CSPs to MHPs. Additionally, MHPs who are willing to use communication method(s) preferred by their CSP counterparts are more likely to receive information necessary for effective treatment.
The second major benefit to clients is that collaborative relationships allow MHPs to serve as advocates in the context of community supervision (MHP 2.3). MHPs have a different professional perspective that provides insight into clients’ behaviors, and the therapeutic relationship may provide a better opportunity for clients to discuss their problems than a supervisory relationship with CSPs permits. While the differential professional training and disposition of MHPs versus CSPs contributes to the potency of advocacy, having exclusively defined roles and responsibilities (MHP 4.3) provides greater opportunity for MHPs to gain the trust of clients (MHP 2.4).
Finally, MHPs view their efforts to maintain collaborative relationships with CSPs as a key component in maximizing the benefits of these partnerships (MHP 2.5). Again, MHPs draw an association between coordinating services with CSPs and how low client motivation interferes with participating in treatment. Additionally, maintaining the collaborative relationship can assist with effective service allocation, both in terms of understanding the client’s needs and avoiding redundant services (MHP 1.3).
Consistent with maximizing the benefits of treatment-related relationships, MHPs described how working towards healthy, positive, and active relationships promotes effective collaborations (MHP 4.1). Further, MHPs described the need to maintain professional boundaries, both with regard to adhering to professional standards and limits
108
on communication (MHP 3.2) and a general sense of professionalism (MHP 4.2), as key in creating an atmosphere of safety for clients. As discussed in MHP 2.4, a major role of MHPs is ensuring that clients feel that they can be open and honest in treatment.
In contrast, CSPs did discuss the impact of collaboration on clients’ success more directly and concisely than MHPs. This manifests primarily as differential roles in the professional dyad. CSPs view their primary role as providing clients structure in light of supervision conditions imposed by the courts (CSP 2.1). In multiple interviews, CSPs noted the importance of their clients adhering to such rules and the importance of modeling rule-adherence so that they are not re-incarcerated. The secondary role
identified focuses on how CSPs provide referrals to appropriate services as an adjunct to the expectations set by probation and parole conditions (CSP 1.2, CSP 2.2). This
perspective is consistent with the MHP role of providing a service to community supervision programs, as described above (MHP 2.2).
A tertiary CSP role, maintaining role discrimination between CSPs and MHPs (CSP 2.4), also contributes directly to clients’ success in the community. MHPs discussed similar aspects of their interprofessional relationships and duties (MHP 2.4, MHP 4.3), though MHPs focused more on professional differentiation as a means of maintaining professional fidelity. CSPs and their supervisors also focused on the
importance of professional boundaries in the service of their primary duty (CSP 1.1), yet here presented it less as a matter of contamination and more an issue of efficient service provision.
These subthemes identified as key to providing effective mental health treatment demonstrated significant overlap with IPEC (2012) standards of best interprofessional
109
practice. There are, however, certain related subcompetencies identified for Aim 2 that stand out with regard to their repeated association with the subthemes discussed here. The focus of Aim 3 greatly overlaps with the values and ethics principle advising diversity in the professional team (VE 3) and developing a trusting relationship with clients and collaborators (VE 6). For the roles and responsibilities competency, these subthemes overlap with forging collaborations conducive to treatment (RR 7) and defining the exclusive roles and responsibilities of professionals (RR 6). A primary interface with the IPC competency involves maintaining professionalism in interactions (IPC 3, IPC 6). Finally, the subthemes referenced here exclusively overlap with two of the teams and teamwork subcompetencies: the need to engage in and maintain team development (TT 1) as well as providing professional insights to resolve differences in managing clients/offenders (TT 6).